The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

Michael Bloomberg (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

The public meltdown of the National Rifle Association in the aftermath of the heinous massacre of schoolchildren in Connecticut has spurred activists, commentators and political organizers to action and outrage. From across the political spectrum, the reaction to NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre's angry call for more guns in schools - indeed, guns as the solution to many of society's problems - has been shock and denunciation, especially given the NRA's seeming lack of sensitivity following the murder of 20 first-graders with a semiautomatic AR-15 Bushmaster weapon. But there's one response lacking, and one that I'm certain a really smart social entrepreneur could provide.

Competition.

For decades, the NRA has maintained near monopoly status as the nation's premiere gun safety organization - even after its controversial entry into publicly lobbying against gun control legislation in the 1970s, it still maintained training relationships with police departments and youth groups, including the Boy Scouts of America. Millions of Scouts have received NRA junior marksman cards (I'm one), and millions of Americans have learned to safely use firearms thanks to NRA-certified instructors. Indeed, the Scouts and the NRA celebrated a century of gun safety training in 2010 - even as the NRA continued its opposition to tougher gun laws aimed at keeping public spaces safer.

In terms of gun safety and shooting training, the NRA is pretty much the only game in town. And in many respects, it does a good job in mandating the kinds of national standards for safety that it ironically opposes on the legislative front. But its reaction to the Newtown murders and the groundswell of public opinion toward stronger gun legislation and firearms safety has introduced one factor into a formerly frozen market for those services - and its the kind of factor that usually awakens the entrepreneurial spirit in American markets:

Disruption.

When a brand is as publicly damaged as the NRA's currently is, it's open to challenge - and improvement. Peeling away the gun safety portion of what the NRA does and making a persuasive case for a more mainstream and ethical approach to firearms training seems like a real opportunity for a team of social entrepreneurs. For one thing, the market is huge. Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property, reported a Gallup survey last year. Further, the NRA itself brags about its "network of more than 65,000 instructors, more than 3,800 coaches, and more than 1,700 training counselors." Surely, many of them might be ready for a change, especially after Newtown. And then there's the NRA membership: more than four million dues-paying members, some percentage of whom would almost certainly be open to a better deal with a new organization that didn't come with the NRA's growing air of disrepute. All of this adds up to another factor that attracts social entrepreneurs:

Opportunity.

That's because social entrepreneurs aren't interested in a single bottom line. There's a financial opportunity here, to be sure. A major dues-supported and fee-for-service organization is clearly possible. But the opportunity to challenge the NRA's hegemony may carry greater societal impact. The NRA has clearly been insulated by the portion of unadulterated good it does: few would argue that training Americans to use guns safely in a society that prizes its constitutional right to carry firearms for legitimate purposes (including sport and hunting) is vitally important work.

But how many organizations feel less comfortable partnering with an organization that opposes a ban of assault weapons, an organization whose leadership responded callously to the mass murder of schoolchildren in their classroom? Do police departments feel good about this partnership? Does the Boy Scouts of America and its network of local councils? Which brings us to a final factor that should attract the attention of ambitious social entrepreneurs looking to make a different after Newtown:

Funding.

Let's ask a "what if" question. What if there were a very prominent billionaire who opposed the NRA's actions in public policy? What if that billionaire - a man with a strong history of informed philanthropic investment - declared his intention to change the landscape on gun safety and firearms policy? What if that billionaire also happened to be the boss of the nation's largest police force, a law enforcement organization that necessarily partners with the NRA for safety certification? Oh, and what if that billionaire was himself a wildly successful entrepreneur who knew first-hand the power of market economics on social change?